1990 (9) TMI 184 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Bail cancellation based on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Granting Criteria under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
The judgment involves a case where the respondent, a Sri Lankan national, was found attempting to smuggle narcotic substances out of the country. The petitioner, representing the Customs Department, sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the II Additional Sessions Judge. The central argument was that the bail order did not consider the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which restrict bail for offenses punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. The judgment cites various precedents emphasizing the need for courts to consider factors like the nature of the offense, the accused's character, and the likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence before granting bail in such cases.

2. Judicial Discretion and Prima Facie Evidence:
The judgment delves into the details of the case, highlighting the respondent's possession of heroin concealed in lamps and his admission of intent to transport the contraband to Sri Lanka. It emphasizes the gravity of the offense, the potential for the respondent to abscond, and the severe punishment prescribed under the Act. The judgment notes that the respondent being a foreign national increases the risk of flight, especially given the ease of illegal transport to Sri Lanka. The court underscores that the bail decision should have considered the stringent conditions set forth in Section 37 of the Act and the prima facie evidence indicating the respondent's involvement in a serious offense.

3. Improper Exercise of Judicial Discretion:
The judgment criticizes the bail order for failing to address the specific requirements of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and for not adequately considering the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of the respondent committing further offenses if released on bail. The court concludes that the bail order was a reflection of improper exercise of judicial discretion by the II Additional Sessions Judge. As a result, the court allows the petition, cancels the bail granted to the respondent, and directs the respondent to be secured and put in judicial custody.

Overall, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing bail in cases involving offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It underscores the importance of considering specific factors and statutory provisions while exercising judicial discretion in bail matters related to serious offenses like drug smuggling.